99 years in a century?

crosstownk

Never mind all the maths.

on 31st Dec 1999 I was out on the piss celebrating the turn into the new century/millenium (0000h, 01-01-2000).

I don't recall a big shindig on 31-12-2000 waiting for the magical 2001 to happen..........

Were we all duped? Did we miss out on the real party?

Wizard!

Yes, but celebrating and math are two different things... Don't confuse them.

twin_beacon

Wizard! wrote: »

Really?

So, I was born on 00:00:00 on Jan 1st on year 1.
What is my age on 23:59:59 on Dec 31st on year 1 ?

to be exact, your age is 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours 59 seconds.

Wizard! wrote: »

What is my age on 00:00:00 on Jan 1st on year 2 ?

your age is 1 year 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours 59 seconds.

Wizard! wrote: »

To save the trouble, it's pretty much the same. On both occasions I am 1 yo.

on both occasions you are not one year old. see above

QUOTE=Wizard!;100778160]
When a baby is born, it's NOT 1yo, but it's first year of life, it's NOT year zero!



After 10 days, it's 10 days old.
After 6 months, it's 6 months old
After a year, it's 1 yo.
[/QUOTE]

Correct, its not year zero, its age is the amount of years/months/days/seconds since its birth.
I.E. if a baby was born on Jan 1st, and somebody asks the age of the baby on march 1st, the baby's age is 2 months, not zero.

Wizard! wrote: »

After a year and a day, still is 1 yo, but 1st year is completed and runs through it's 2nd year of it's life.

well, technically, its one year and one day. However, people don't tell their age down to the day, they just mention the year.

Wizard! wrote: »

So, if we suppose Jesus was born on Jan 1st, after 365 days, he is 1 yo and its 1AD.
After 366 days, he is still 1 yo but the calendar says we are running through his second year, it's NOT completed yet.

So, a century begins on Jan 1st of year XXX1 and ends on Dec 31st of year X000.

I'm not saying you are wrong, however those calendars are mathematically incorrect, as you can't go from -1 straight to +1 without 0 being in the middle.

PaddyWilliams

Wizard! wrote: »

Really?

So, I was born on 00:00:00 on Jan 1st on year 1.
What is my age on 23:59:59 on Dec 31st on year 1 ?
What is my age on 00:00:00 on Jan 1st on year 2 ?

To save the trouble, it's pretty much the same. On both occasions I am 1 yo.
When a baby is born, it's NOT 1yo, but it's first year of life, it's NOT year zero!

After 10 days, it's 10 days old.
After 6 months, it's 6 months old
After a year, it's 1 yo.
After a year and a day, still is 1 yo, but 1st year is completed and runs through it's 2nd year of it's life.

So, if we suppose Jesus was born on Jan 1st, after 365 days, he is 1 yo and its 1AD.
After 366 days, he is still 1 yo but the calendar says we are running through his second year, it's NOT completed yet.

So, a century begins on Jan 1st of year XXX1 and ends on Dec 31st of year X000.

No, it doesn't, it begins Jan 1st X000 and finishes Dec 31 XX99. Are you trying to say that 1999 and 2000 were the same century? Or that 1899 and 1900 were the same century? Because to me and many others that does not make sense.

A.D. time or BCE time or whatever you want to call it, started when Christ was born. So the clock started at 0 shall we say. When Jesus turned 1 it was 1 A.D. There may not have been an official name for it, but the first year of his life was 0 A.D. After exactly 12 months it was then 1 A.D.

Jimoslimos

Years are counted

Time is measured.

FunLover18

CMOTDibbler wrote:

There was a year 0.

No there wasn't, look it up.

CMOTDibbler wrote:

Otherwise there wouldn't have been a year 1.

The first year was year one, there was ONE year. Year zero cannot logically exist.

CMOTDibbler wrote:

Year 0 was the year that culiminated in a year having passed and everyone said "That's one year gone". So year 1 started and continued until year 2 started.

So one year passed, that year is therefore year 1. Then the second year started, ie year 2. I turned one on my first birthday because I had completed one year of life.

CMOTDibbler wrote:

Using the 'old' terminology, 1 AD was 1 year after Christ died. 12 months of year 0 in other words.

12 months is 1 year. Year one marked the 1 year anniversary of Jesus's birth/death not the 0 Year anniversary.

CMOTDibbler wrote:

How about that for an explanation?

Terrible.

twin_beacon wrote:

When measuring something, you must start at zero. As a software developer, this is literally one of the very first concepts that is thought to you in college.

stop thinking in terms of software development. One of the first things we're taught in life is that 1 represents one, not two.

One year passed = year 1
Two years passed = year 2
Etc.

Counting to one hundred I start at, end at 100. I don't start at zero and end at 99, because that's only 99 given that zero represents nothing, nil, zilch, fck all.

Jimoslimos

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

A.D. time or BCE time or whatever you want to call it, started when Christ was born. So the clock started at 0 shall we say. When Jesus turned 1 it was 1 A.D. There may not have been an official name for it, but the first year of his life was 0 A.D. After exactly 12 months it was then 1 A.D.

Nope, Latin is your friend here.

AD or Anno Domini is translated as "In the year of the Lord" not
the number of years after he was born.

Just like scoring in the 1st minute of a football match means anywhere between 0 and 59 seconds.

mansize

corglass wrote: »

You're wrong. You start at 0.

Example:
0 apples
1 apple
2 apples..

Otherwise you've no way to explain that you've no apples

If there are none to count you have 0. The first Apple is 1

PaddyWilliams

FunLover18 wrote: »

No there wasn't, look it up.



The first year was year one, there was ONE year. Year zero cannot logically exist.



So one year passed, that year is therefore year 1. Then the second year started, ie year 2. I turned one on my first birthday because I had completed one year of life.



12 months is 1 year. Year one marked the 1 year anniversary of Jesus's birth/death not the 0 Year anniversary.



Terrible.



stop thinking in terms of software development. One of the first things we're taught in life is that 1 represents one, not two.

One year passed = year 1
Two years passed = year 2
Etc.

Counting to one hundred I start at, end at 100. I don't start at zero and end at 99, because that's only 99 given that zero represents nothing, nil, zilch, fck all.

This is where you're confusing things. There was a first year yes. Year one, as you say. When that first year finished it was 1 A.D.

It was not 1 A.D. in that first year. It was 1 A.D., a year after Christ's birth, it was not 1 A.D. before Christ turned 1 year old.

I wish I could simplify it more, but that's my explanation of it.

mansize

Year 1 was the first year. It's not the measurement of time, it's counting.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)

Wizard!

Eeeehmm, no!
To be exact, on Dec 31st year 1, I am EXACTLY 1 yo.
Cause, I started on 00:00:00, so by 00:00:00.9999999 I am 1 sec old.

And according to your logic, you say that even on Jan 1st of year 2, I am still 11 months 30 days, etc ?
So I didn't grow up for the last second?

Guys, don't mess maths with fun.

ZERO is mathematical representation of nothing. You cannot have 365 days in time and name them ZERO/nothing.

jimgoose

MOH wrote: »

?

http://z80-heaven.wikidot.com/instructions-set:rrca

mansize

Why am I bothered.

Maximus Alexander

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

This is where you're confusing things.

On the contrary, all of this is where you're confusing things:

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

There was a first year yes. Year one, as you say. When that first year finished it was 1 A.D.

It was not 1 A.D. in that first year. It was 1 A.D., a year after Christ's birth, it was not 1 A.D. before Christ turned 1 year old.

I wish I could simplify it more, but that's my explanation of it.

jimgoose

twin_beacon wrote: »

...As a software developer, this is literally one of the very first concepts that is thought to you in college.

Indeed. And as a person counting things in the real world, you start with "Thing number 1", not "Thing number 0". The reason for zero-based numbering in computing goes back to Elder Days and the DJZ/DJNZ (Decrement and Jump if Zero/Non-Zero) assembler mnemonic upon which most iterative loops were based. It just makes it a lot easier for a machine to deal with the Universe if data structures and indices and what-not are numbered from zero.

How can something so simple be confused? The OP is absolutely correct. The Gregorian calendar begins with the Year 1. There was no Year 0 that is recognized in our calendar.

You can start counting at 0, yes; the Gregorian calendar did not.

jimgoose

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

...You can start counting at 0, yes; the Gregorian calendar did not.

You can start counting from -27 if it be pleasing you, but unless everyone else does the same things will get ugly pretty quickly. :pac:

twin_beacon

FunLover18 wrote: »

So one year passed, that year is therefore year 1.

what about the middle of that year?
Time is measured, not counted.
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Can't go from -1, to +1.

Maximus Alexander

twin_beacon wrote: »

what about the middle of that year?
Time is measured, not counted.
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Can't go from -1, to +1.

It amazes me that you genuinely think you're talking sense.

jimgoose

twin_beacon wrote: »

what about the middle of that year?
Time is measured, not counted.
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Can't go from -1, to +1.

But this is about counting years, not measuring time. It's a bit like when a goal is scored in a football match after 47 seconds - that's said to have been scored in the first minute.

MOH

Jesus, we did all this 17 years ago.
(And 16 years ago)

jmayo

What was the actual date in the roman calendar of the time when Jesus was supposedly born ?

The Julian/Gregorian calendars only came into being much later so what was the actual date ?

mansize wrote: »

If you count apples you don't start at 0, you start a 1.

I have tried teaching my young 8 year old fellow about negative numbers with apples.
Tis getting a bit confusing to say the least.
Also now he think negative apples is the name given to the ones his 3 year old brother eats.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

What was the actual date in the roman calendar of the time when Jesus was supposedly born ?

The Julian/Gregorian calendars only came into being much later so what was the actual date ?

I'm not sure if you're asking for historical purposes (I don't know, is the answer), but it's not relevant to the answering of the question. The Gregorian calendar is the one we use, and it does not include a Year 0, regardless of what alternative systems might (illogically) wish to do.

So if Jesus was born in the 7th year of Herod, or whatever the figure is, that's just neither here nor there to us today.

jimgoose

jmayo wrote: »

What was the actual date in the roman calendar of the time when Jesus was supposedly born ?...

Around 5500 Anno Mundi.

jimgoose

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're asking for historical purposes (I don't know, is the answer), but it's not relevant to the answering of the question. The Gregorian calendar is the one we use, and it does not include a Year 0, regardless of what alternative systems might (illogically) wish to do.

So if Jesus was born in the 7th year of Herod, or whatever the figure is, that's just neither here nor there to us today.

They reckon somewhere between 6BC and 2BC.

twin_beacon

Wizard! wrote: »

So, I was born on 00:00:00 on Jan 1st on year 1.
What is my age on 23:59:59 on Dec 31st on year 1 ?

Wizard! wrote: »

Eeeehmm, no!
To be exact, on Dec 31st year 1, I am EXACTLY 1 yo.
Cause, I started on 00:00:00, so by 00:00:00.9999999 I am 1 sec old.

is 0.99999999 = 1?
No

the time measurement you just gave, from 00:00 on Jan 1st, to 23:59 on dec 31 of the same year, is exactly one full second short of one year. Therefore, you are not EXACTLY on year old until that second has passed.

Wizard! wrote: »

And according to your logic, you say that even on Jan 1st of year 2, I am still 11 months 30 days, etc ?
So I didn't grow up for the last second?

No, according to my logic, on 00:00 Jan 1st of year 2, you are exactly 1 year old, for that exactly second, not a second sooner, or a second later. Because for that one second, exactly one full year has passed.
On 00:00:01 of Jan 1st of year 1, you are 1 second old.
on 00:00:01 of Jan 1st of year 2, you are 1 year and 1 second old.

Wizard! wrote: »

Guys, don't mess maths with fun.

ZERO is mathematical representation of nothing. You cannot have 365 days in time and name them ZERO/nothing.

Nobody is saying that at all.
on Feb first of year one in this instance, your age is 1 month, not zero.

Widdershins

I'm sorry, every time I see this post on the main page I keep reading ''99 years in a cemetery''.

twin_beacon

jimgoose wrote: »

Indeed. And as a person counting things in the real world, you start with "Thing number 1", not "Thing number 0". The reason for zero-based numbering in computing goes back to Elder Days and the DJZ/DJNZ (Decrement and Jump if Zero/Non-Zero) assembler mnemonic upon which most iterative loops were based. It just makes it a lot easier for a machine to deal with the Universe if data structures and indices and what-not are numbered from zero.

if you look at one of my previous posts, I said there is a difference between counting and measuring. Time is measured, not counted.

jimgoose

twin_beacon wrote: »

if you look at one of my previous posts, I said there is a difference between counting and measuring. Time is measured, not counted.

Indeed and quite so. Year numbering is not measuring time.

twin_beacon

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It amazes me that you genuinely think you're talking sense.

what exact parts do you not understand?

jimgoose wrote: »

But this is about counting years, not measuring time. It's a bit like when a goal is scored in a football match after 47 seconds - that's said to have been scored in the first minute.

sorry, but you have just proven my point!
Its the first minute of the game, yet the clock will say 00:47.
In the first year of the century, the year was 2000

jmayo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're asking for historical purposes (I don't know, is the answer), but it's not relevant to the answering of the question. The Gregorian calendar is the one we use, and it does not include a Year 0, regardless of what alternative systems might (illogically) wish to do.

So if Jesus was born in the 7th year of Herod, or whatever the figure is, that's just neither here nor there to us today.

Geniunely I would like to know what was the supposed year according to Roman times.
Were they still using consuls or had they started using some Emperor based system as Augustus was in charge by then?

Well there is the other thing, was there a different provincial calendar in use in Judea at the time ?

We are basing a calendar on the birth of someone a few hundred years before the calendar came into being.
How sure are they that they did the right conversions from the old calendars to the new one ?
There could be difference of decades.

jimgoose wrote: »

Around 5500 Anno Mundi.

I am going to have forward this to Danny Healy Rae for his expert input.

jimgoose

twin_beacon wrote: »

...sorry, but you have just proven my point!
Its the first minute of the game, yet the clock will say 00:47.
In the first year of the century, the year was 2000

It would have been if the first year of the preceding century was 1900. It wasn't. Think of the point between BC and AD as precisely that - a "point", instead of the year of that famous event. Then, you have the year 1 AD, and the year 1 BC (or "-1", if that helps).

murpho999

People saying there was no year zero have a point but you must still realise that the Year 1, represented a year that had occurred not what it actually is.

Just like your birthday represents how many years you have already lived not what year of your life you are in.

Everyone celebrated the millennium on 31/12/1999 but in reality it didn't begin until 01/01/2001 but does it really matter?

Maximus Alexander

twin_beacon wrote: »

what exact parts do you not understand

I don't understand how someone can fail to understand how the Gregorian calendar works.

donegal.

whats the date next thursday?

Maximus Alexander

donegal. wrote: »

whats the date next thursday?

Grenade thrown.

jimgoose

donegal. wrote: »

whats the date next thursday?

1472079600

jimgoose

jimgoose wrote: »

They reckon somewhere between 6BC and 2BC.

It's for another thread I guess, but you're right, and the whole area of historical study of Jesus and the New Testament is pretty interesting.

I don't believe in Jesus as a divine prophet, but as a normal man, and it's fascinating to trace the Bible to historical events like his death. There are some fascinating (non-religious) studies of astronomy and history which tally with what the Bible reports about Jesus and the circumstances of his crucifixion.

For example, according to Peter, the moon appeared like blood on the night Jesus Christ died, and interestingly, there was a partial lunar eclipse on the 3rd of April in 33 A.D., which was a Friday evening, and this tallies with Peter's Gospel as it relates to Good Friday.

However, as you point out, Jesus was born a few years before 1 AD, so it suggests that Jesus was in his late thirties, and not 33 years of age at his death.

Sarn

donegal. wrote: »

whats the date next thursday?

Don't even think about it. We're not going down that road again.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Alive1 wrote: »

BC/AD is no longer used, the correct abbreviations are BCE and CE

WTF does that stand for?

FunLover18

PaddyWilliams wrote:

This is where you're confusing things. There was a first year yes. Year one, as you say. When that first year finished it was 1 A.D.

What year are we in now? 2016.

When did 2016 start? January 1.

We are in the middle of 2016.

The year 2016 is not yet over/complete.

It is still 2016.

Apply the same logic to year one and you'll see where you went wrong.

murpho999

FunLover18 wrote: »

What year are we in now? 2016.

When did 2016 start? January 1.

We are in the middle of 2016.

The year 2016 is not yet over/complete.

It is still 2016.

Apply the same logic to year one and you'll see where you went wrong.

Year one is from 01/01/2000 - 31/12/2000.

Therefore 2001 is the 2nd year of the century according to your logic. As that is too confusing it was decreed that the millennium would start on 01/01/2001 and therefore this century will end on 31/12/2100. Makes perfect sense.
This was actually well known around the 1999/2000 period.

mordeith

Eduardo Important Roughneck wrote: »

WTF does that stand for?

Before Common Era

jimgoose

murpho999 wrote: »

Year one is from 01/01/2000 - 31/12/2000.

Therefore 2001 is the 2nd year of the century according to your logic. As that is too confusing it was decreed that the millennium would start on 01/01/2001 and therefore this century will end on 31/12/2100. Makes perfect sense.
This was actually well known around the 1999/2000 period.

Yes, that's what he was saying in the thread OP. The only point he's making just above is that it is Year 1 the first second it starts, not when it finishes.

Creol1

twin_beacon wrote: »

what about the middle of that year?
Time is measured, not counted.
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Can't go from -1, to +1.

The new century started at 1, not 0, and took a year before reaching 2 CE; so when the year 2 CE is reached, 1 year has been completed; when the year 3 CE is reached, 2 years have been completed; when the year 99 CE is reached, 98 years have been completed; when 100 CE is reached, 99 years have been completed; when 101 CE is reached, 100 years have been completed and therefore the second century begins (on 1st January 101 CE). When 1999 was reached, 1998 years had been completed; when 2000 was reached, 1999 years had been completed; when 2001 was reached, 2000 years had been completed and hence the third millennium began.

We are conditioned to think of it in conventional mathematical terms (-2 BCE, -1 BCE, 0 CE, 1 CE, 2 CE) but that's not how it was. The new millennium was dated as beginning at the start of 754 AUC (calculated by the foundation of Rome). 754 AUC was 1 CE; 755 was 2 CE; as regards BCE, 753 was 1 BCE; 752 AUC was 2 BCE and so on.

FunLover18

FunLover18 wrote: »

Before common era and common era

I will literally never use those

mansize

2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD,...,2016AD

No year 0

Alf Veedersane

mansize wrote: »

2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD,...,2016AD

No year 0

That's only because you didn't type it.

FunLover18

Alf Veedersane wrote:

That's only because you didn't type it.

Taken from the Wiki page

Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini (or Common Era) system usually used to number years in theGregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1.

Alf Veedersane

FunLover18 wrote: »

Taken from the Wiki page

Oh, right. Wikipedia.

Well, that's that then.